Ask HN: Is it okay to just bootstrap it, even when VCs are knocking?

Rather than be faced with angry customers who couldn't take delivery, the price hike made sure that only the customers who really wanted the Ultra tech would be in line for it anyway. (It also removed incentives for the channel to illicitly take those higher margin dollars, when Sun needed them to grow capacity...)

FWIW, I've done between a half dozen to a dozen startups, some bootstrapped, some VC, and I can tell you that with very few exceptions, VC money is best avoided, or at least pushed out as far as possible. The chances of NOT getting pushed out as a technical founder (especially if you want to significantly influence what gets built and why) are pretty slim, and yeah, nothing wears you down quite like having to fight for influence in a company YOU created. Just dont' go there, unless you're really willing to put others in full charge of your baby.

There is nothing wrong with owning and running your own privately held company the way you see fit. (I had lunch recently with a founder who declined VC money because of the reasonable fear that the VCs would make his company "woke" (they pressed to rainbow-logo in June when negotiating the term sheet.) Since both the founders are fundamentally philosophically and religiously opposed to that worldview and will not tolerate it, they passed up the millions in seed/A to continue to grow organically. The company may grow a bit more slowly, but it will be a much stronger company growing it in a way the founders can live with.)

Don't underestimate that! It's better to have a good source of income, freedom of action, and be happy doing something enjoyable and meaningful in life, rather than chase unicorns by dealing with investors you don't like forcing you to do things you don't like. Up from a certain income level, extra money doesn't bring more happiness. And that income level isn't that high.

In my personal observation, bootstrapped businesses fare better in many important aspects. But this might be due to survivorship bias. If you are patient and your business allows, I think there is a lot of advantages of keeping full control and having to go through all of the lessons at a slower pace and, more importantly, at the pace of your choosing.

The company I am currently working with ran into some problems and decided to pause the growth and fix some stuff before resuming. This is only possible because the the founders are fully owners of the company and can do whatever we decide makes best sense.

On the other hand there are situations where the winner takes it all. If you are in this kind of situation you probably should take funding as long as it is not going to be distracting you from your product and growing your company.

I think you use the funding like any other loan. What are you buying with it? Do you have to take it? How much do you really need? Are benefits higher than the costs?

If you can make it work for you, and you're happy, do that thing. Chasing money at all costs is a very different path than what appears to motivate you, but is what VC would require.